But your honor, he was acting suspiciously. He was wearing dark skin that made it seem like he was getting ready to hide in the shadows, and why would he be doing that if he was planning on following the law?

I was referring more to the way she runs her courtroom - her reputation (which I know from general news readings and from a friend who argued cases in front of her) is that she tolerates no shiat and will make you hurt for futzing around with the law.

Dr Dreidel:Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop. And not a moment before.

You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin

You mean the judge that ruled "Stop and Frisk" unconstitutional, only to lift the ban days later, due to the "burden" it would place on the poor little police officers?

Very harsh.

Pick another one, then.

I was referring more to the way she runs her courtroom - her reputation (which I know from general news readings and from a friend who argued cases in front of her) is that she tolerates no shiat and will make you hurt for futzing around with the law.

She may well be a very tough judge, but she hasn't altered stop and frisk in any way. If anything, her remedies will be pointed to as proof that the "problem is being addressed", when in fact her remedies will have no effect whatsoever.

That isn't what the ruling says at all. The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue, and an outside lawyer will be retained to provide reports on it every six months, but there's no injuction to stop or change the program in any specific way.

TFA: Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk."

Sorry, Subby, but no. In the future, you might want to try reading your own article.

remus:In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.

What if it kept the world from blowing up? See how silly it seems to say "...for any reason"? You'd take a grope to keep the planet from exploding. Wouldn't you? The question now is just how much less of a reason is still acceptable.

remus:In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.

The people that are "for" this are not the people being targeted by the NYPD. The ruling says that if the racial bias is removed from the day-to-day implementation of the policy it can be continued.

Watch the same people biatch and moan (as they do with the TSA) if/when that happens.

RightWingWacko:Theaetetus: firefly212: The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue

The ruling says it's constitutional due to the racial profiling. Stop and frisk itself can continue, provided they address the race issue.

In other words... it's ok to violate a persons rights as long as you violate EVERYONES's rights equally!

That's part of the ruling, but the judge actually wrote that it violates both the 4th and 14th amendment rights, the racial component was addressed as a violation of the 14th amendment, but the 4th amendment violation assessed by the judge was only addressed via the outside counsel evaluation and six month reports.

Also, I'm giving Thaetus the benefit of the doubt that he meant *un*constitutional and just hurriedly wrote constitutional.